ORDER : “Whether the First Appellate Court committed any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in modifying the order of the trial Court regarding quantum of maintenance, compensation and right of private accommodation ?” is the question involved in this case. 2. These proceedings arise out of Crl.Misc.No.235/2012 on the file of MMTC-III, Bengaluru. The said proceedings were initiated on the complaint of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘DV Act’). 3. The Marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 22.02.1981 in Arasikere as per the Hindu rites. Out of the marriage, the couple begot one son and one daughter. They are married and living separately. 4. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.235/2012 against the respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act alleging that respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. She alleged that the respondent was addicted to vices and when she questioned that, he threatened that he will murder her and her children. Therefore, she did not initiate any legal action against him. She further claimed that he failed and neglected to maintain her despite having monthly salary of more than Rs.25,000/, rental income of Rs.25,000/-per month and Rs.90,000/-from money lending business. She further claimed that he owned several properties in Belagavi, Panaji and Goa and his total monthly income was more than Rs.25,00,000/-. 5. The respondent initially did not appear before the Trial Court. Therefore, on 27.06.2013 the trail Court on recording evidence and hearing the petitioner, partly allowed the petition, granted monetary relief of Rs.5,000/-per month, protection order, order of residence and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent challenged the said order in Crl.A.No.63/2014 before Fast Track Court-XI, Bengaluru. The Sessions Court on 8.8.2014 allowed Crl.A.No.63/2014 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to give opportunity to both side and dispose of the matter afresh. 6. After remand the respondent filed statement of objections denying domestic violence, quantum of his income and financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner led the further evidence. Respondent though led examination in chief did not tender himself for cross examination. Therefore his evidence was closed. 7. Thereafter on hearing both counsel, the trial Court by order dated 8.4.2015 partly allowed the petition awarding the following reliefs:- (i) Protection order against domestic violence. (ii) Maintenance of Rs.12,000/-per month till the lifetime of the petitioner or till she remarries. Respondent though led examination in chief did not tender himself for cross examination. Therefore his evidence was closed. 7. Thereafter on hearing both counsel, the trial Court by order dated 8.4.2015 partly allowed the petition awarding the following reliefs:- (i) Protection order against domestic violence. (ii) Maintenance of Rs.12,000/-per month till the lifetime of the petitioner or till she remarries. (iii) Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for Domestic Violence suffered by her. (iv) Direction to provide private residence to the petitioner. (v) Litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-. 8. The respondent challenged the said order before the LXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.633/2015. The First Appellate Court on hearing the parties by the impugned order partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the trail Court as follows:- (i) The Order of right of residence was set aside; (ii) The monetary relief was reduced from Rs.12,000/-to Rs.6,000/-per month; (iii) The compensation was reduced from Rs.5,00,000/-to Rs.1,00,000/-. 9. The petitioner/wife has challenged the said order in the above Criminal Revision Petition. Reiterating the grounds of the Revision petition Sri.T.H. Avin, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent owned several houses and open sites in several places. He submits that apart from immovable properties respondent also owned shares of Reliance Company etc., got terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore, the First Appellant Court was not justified in reducing the maintenance and compensation and reversing the order of right of residence. 10. Per Contra, Sri. G. Jairaj, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to justify the impugned order of the First Appellate Court on the ground that the cross examination of PW1 herself showed that she owned several properties. He submits that except the pension of the respondent he has no other income and documents produced by the petitioner do not show that the immovable properties and shares are generating income to him. He submits that having regard to the age of the respondent and the other material on record, the First Appellate Court was justified in modifying the order. 11. This being the Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the scope of interference in the revisional jurisdiction is very limited, unless it is shown that the order of the First Appellate Court suffers patent illegality impropriety or incorrectness, this Court cannot interfere with such order. 12. 11. This being the Revision Petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. the scope of interference in the revisional jurisdiction is very limited, unless it is shown that the order of the First Appellate Court suffers patent illegality impropriety or incorrectness, this Court cannot interfere with such order. 12. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. The marriage had taken place in the year 1981 and the petition was filed in the year 2012. Before filing the petition on hand, petition in M.C.No.1537/2008 for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent was presented before the Family Court, Bengaluru purportedly by the petitioner and respondent seeking dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. Later the petitioner filed memo in M.C.No.1537/2008 alleging that the respondent fraudulently obtained her signatures on blank papers and misusing them presented before the Family Court and she has not consented for dissolution of marriage. Having regard to such memo filed, the Family Court dismissed the petition. 13. The son and daughter of the petitioner and respondent are married and having children. As admitted by the petitioner herself, her son is working as an Engineer in Bengaluru and has his own income. After 31 years of marriage, the petitioner came before the Court claiming that she was subjected to Domestic Violence all along. The following were the allegations on Domestic Violence:- (i) Respondent was addicted to alcohol and ill-treating her physically and mentally. (ii) He had illicit relationship with some other women and on she questioning that he used to assault her, threaten her that he will kill her and her children. (iii) Despite having sufficient income, he neglected to maintain her and her children and subjected her to economic abuse. 14. During the course of evidence before the trial Court, the petitioner produced photographs and claimed that the respondent has underwent second marriage. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court both held that the respondent had extra marital relationship and he entered into a bigamous marriage thereby there is domestic violence to petitioner. The respondent did not challenge those findings. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also held that the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioner. The respondent did not challenge those findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, those findings regarding infliction of domestic violence have attained finality. 15. The respondent did not challenge those findings. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court also held that the respondent has neglected to maintain the petitioner. The respondent did not challenge those findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, those findings regarding infliction of domestic violence have attained finality. 15. Under the circumstances, the only question for consideration of this Court is, “Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reducing the rate of maintenance, quantum of compensation and rejecting right of private residence ?”. 16. In granting maintenance of Rs.12,000/-per month, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-and right of private residence the trial Court based its order on the following grounds:- (1) Ex.P9, 10 and Ex.R6 -the Pension records of the respondent show that he got terminal benefits of Rs.4,00,000/-and monthly pension of Rs.17,014/-. (2) The respondent did not tender himself for cross examination, thereby the case of the petitioner stood unrebutted. (3) The photographs produced by the petitioner Exs.P34 to P37 show that the house of the petitioner has become dilapidated. Therefore, she needs residence for her dwelling. (4) The photograph produced at Ex.P34 and Ex.P11 the revenue records show that the respondent owns four buildings and site No.116 measuring 60 x 40 feet. (5) Ex.P12 to P16 show that the respondent has shares in IDBL Bank, Reliance Infrastructure Limited and Reliance Capital. 17. The First Appellate Court reduced the maintenance and compensation and reversed the order of right of separate residence on the following grounds:- (i) Petitioner in her cross-examination admitted that she has got eight sites in her name in Kadur, one residential house in Konanakunte, Bengaluru, one BUDA plot in Belgavi and one BDA site in Bengaluru. (ii) She has admitted in her cross-examination that the respondent purchased site Nos.2,3,17,18 and 19 in the name of her father and he in turn has bequeathed them in her favour under a Registered Will. (iii) PW.1 has further admitted in her cross examination that respondent purchased site No.11, measuring 1500 square feet in the year 1986. (iv) Though petitioner claimed that only for taking signature she was called and she does not know respondent purchasing the property in her name, she is a graduate and done her typing in Kannada and English. Therefore, her evidence that she could not comprehend those transactions is unacceptable. (iv) Though petitioner claimed that only for taking signature she was called and she does not know respondent purchasing the property in her name, she is a graduate and done her typing in Kannada and English. Therefore, her evidence that she could not comprehend those transactions is unacceptable. (v) The respondent is retired from service and his pension is fixed at Rs.17,014/-per month. Though the department fixed his pension at Rs.17,014/-per month after commutation his take home pension is fixed at Rs.11,561/-. The petitioner failed to prove that the respondent’s monthly income is Rs.25,00,000/-. (vi) Since the petitioner is residing in the house purchased by the respondent, she is not entitled to provision for her residence. (vii) Having regard to the age and medical condition of the respondent and the properties owned by the petitioner and that she has an earning son, the maintenance awarded at Rs.12,000/-per month and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-is on the higher side. 18. The DV Act was brought into force with the object of protecting the women against Domestic Violence. Section 3 of the DV Act defines “domestic violence”. It covered physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse. Explanation I (iv)(a) of Section 3 reads as follows: “(iv)(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a Court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance.” 19. The perusal of the above definition makes it clear that requirement and necessity of the aggrieved person in providing economic or financial resources to her is the criteria in fixing the quantum or granting monetary relief for economic abuse. Regarding provision for separate residence:- 20. As pointed out by both the Courts petitioner in her cross examination admitted that she is residing in her own house situated at Konanakunte. In her cross examination, she has unequivocally admitted that the respondent acquired the site in Konanakunte in the name of her father and constructed the said house. 21. Regarding provision for separate residence:- 20. As pointed out by both the Courts petitioner in her cross examination admitted that she is residing in her own house situated at Konanakunte. In her cross examination, she has unequivocally admitted that the respondent acquired the site in Konanakunte in the name of her father and constructed the said house. 21. Though she claimed that the loan was availed in her name for the construction of the house and she has repaid the loan amount, except her self serving testimony there was no material to substantiate that. However, she herself claimed that she was unemployed. Then by what resources she repaid the loan was not substantiated. She did not examine any Bank or other money lending institution to show that she availed the loan and constructed the house. 22. As rightly pointed out by the First Appellate Court, PW.1 in her cross examination unequivocally admitted that there are eight sites in Kadur, one house in Konanakunte, one BUDA site in Belagavi and one BDA site in Bengaluru in her name. She, further admitted that respondent purchased site No.11 measuring 1500 square feet in her name on 8.6.1986. She also admitted that respondent purchased site Nos.2, 3, 17, 18 and 19 in the name of her father and her father bequeathed those properties to her under the registered Will dated 31.7.1996 and he had given Power of Attorney to her to manage them. She also admitted that she owns BDA site in 6th stage, Bengaluru. Though she claimed that house in which she is residing had become dilapidated, she did not adduce the evidence of any expert or engineer to prove that it is not fit for human habitation. 23. The trial Court did not consider those aspects at all. Whereas the First Appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence and on considering the aforesaid admissions of PW.1 and many number of properties standing in her name rejected her claim for right of separate accommodation. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with that. Regarding monetary relief: 24. As pointed out, the petitioner herself was owning several immovable properties and they were acquired by the respondent. It may not be out of place to mention here that the respondent was not even a Gazetted Officer, but he acquired the properties wherever he served like Kadur, Belgaum, Bengaluru etc. Regarding monetary relief: 24. As pointed out, the petitioner herself was owning several immovable properties and they were acquired by the respondent. It may not be out of place to mention here that the respondent was not even a Gazetted Officer, but he acquired the properties wherever he served like Kadur, Belgaum, Bengaluru etc. According to the respondent himself except for his salary he was not having any other income. Apart from the immovable properties acquired in the name of the petitioner, as suggested by her only, he owns a house in Vasanthapura and some sites. 25. The petitioner produced the records to show that the respondent owned shares in IDBL Bank and Reliance Industries. She did not produce any evidence to show that those properties were generating income for the respondent. The trial Court itself states in the judgment that the petitioner has not produced appropriate documents and oral evidence about the income of the respondent. 26. Under such circumstances, the only inference is that the respondent acquired so many properties in the name of his father in law and wife from the income other than his known sources of income. Without questioning that the petitioner also became a beneficiary/party to such acquisitions. She herself admitted that out of that she sold two sites and got the money. The petitioner admitted that the respondent was retired from service as an Assistant Controller, Food and Civil Supplies Department. The documents produced by her only showed that his monthly pension after commutation was Rs.11,561/-. 27. Explanation I(iv)(a) to Section 3 of DV Act clearly states that economic abuse is a deprivation of economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law. Her claim for maintenance was based on Section 20 D.V. Act which deals with monetary reliefs to the aggrieved person. Section 20 states that the Court may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence including the maintenance for aggrieved person or her children. 28. Section 20(2) of the Act reads as follows: “The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.” 29. 28. Section 20(2) of the Act reads as follows: “The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.” 29. The reading of the above provision makes it clear that the aggrieved person is entitled to monetary relief out of the legitimate income or properties of the respondent. The evidence on record shows that the petitioner took the lion’s share in the properties acquired by the respondent whether by his known source or otherwise. The trial Court also observed that the petitioner has not produced proper evidence in proof of the income of the respondent. The positive evidence in proof of the income of the respondent was his pension and retirement benefits. 30. Having regard to the properties standing in the name of the petitioner and the respondent, the first appellate Court awarded more than half of the monthly take home pension as monetary relief to the petitioner. That in no way transgresses the criteria or fairness, reasonableness or adequacy contemplated under Section 20(2) of the DV Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. Reg. Compensation: 31. The reasonings supplied in deciding the monetary relief applies in considering the compensation amount also except that comparatively the petitioner owned more immovable properties than the respondent. Except the pensionary income and the terminal benefits of Rs.4,00,000/-there was no evidence to show that he possessed any other funds in his hand. Considering that and the age and medical condition of the respondent the first appellate Court justifiably reduced the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-. 32. This Court does not find any illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order of the first appellate Court. Therefore the revision petition is dismissed.